Pages

1.07.2012

FORT WORTH -- Visiting Judge Elizabeth Berry issued a sweeping gag order Friday in a capital murder trial that prohibits the news media from reporting or disseminating anything that happens in open court outside the presence of the jury . . . . Among other restrictions, Berry's order states that the media may not interview attorneys, litigants, employees of the district attorney's office, parties, witnesses, victims or relatives of victims until the trial ends.

That's baloney, and I'm proud the Star-Telegram is going to fight it. We have conflicting constitutional rights of giving someone a fair trial vs. freedom of speech, but this is insane. You'll often hear of "gag orders" which prevent lawyers from discussing the case (which I'm not sure the Supreme Court has ever addressed) and that makes some sense when one party is trying to influence a trial or potential trial. But telling a newspaper how it will gather and report news is downright frightening.

Public trials means the government can't close the actual courtroom to the public, including the news media. That's ALL it means, Rage. That's why judges can prevent cameras from filming their courtrooms. The Constitution only requires the doors to be open.

Some clarification: As for signing statements and recess appointments - Obama has made far fewer than Bush did in a similar time. So was it ok for Bush (and others) but not Obama? As for the requirement to purchase medical insurance - that was a law passed by both houses of congress.

2:23, Just because both houses passed his bill, doesn't mean it is constitutional. You'll see this summer. You're the one that brought up recess appointments. And what statements that he signed are you referring to?

The problem is that the Senate is NOT in recess. The opposite chamber of Congress must recognize the adjournment of the other chamber. The House has not done so. Therefore, the Senate is holding pro forma sessions, and is NOT in recess.

The "Honorable" Judge Berry has overstepped her authority. She has sway over those in her courtroom and under her control (prosecutor, defense, court officials, etc...), but not a member of the general public once he/she leaves that courtroom. This woman should be removed from the bench.

The appointment of the Consumer Protection Bureau administrator has been before the congress for some time but the Republicans won't even allow an up or down confirmation vote. Real democratic, huh? And which of ya'll is afraid of some additional protections from predatory bankers and insurance companies?